HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB 1998-09-02
....
I
...
..
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
City of Seal Beach
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of September 2, 1998
The adjourned meeting of September 2, 1998 was called to order by Vice Chairperson McGuire
at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. The meeting began with the Salute to the Flag.
Roll Call
Present:
Vice Chairperson McGuire
Members Porter, Jones, Hurley, Voce
Also
Present:
Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Kyle Kollar, Associate Planner
Aaenda Approval
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Porter, Jones, Hurley, Voce, McGuire
Oral Communications
David Rosenman * 8th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman, stating he had a conflict, wanted to get his comments on the Record right away.
He said the last meeting he submitted a question which said please quantify in layman's terms
the transit times before and after this project is put in. He found that in the second paragraph, the
answer was non-responsive.
Member Porter
Member Porter said he had reviewed the staff reports of August 26, July 27 and July 29. He had
reviewed and read the DEIR. He reviewed the Agenda for the August 26, 1998 meeting. He also
listened to the recorded transcripts from the August 26th meeting.
No one wished to speak further during Oral Communications. Vice Chairperson McGuire closed
Oral Communications.
Consent Calendar
There were no Consent Calendar items on the Agenda.
Public Hearinas
There were no Public Hearing items on the Agenda.
Welcome Member Porter
Vice Chairperson McGuire welcomed Member Joseph Porter, an attorney, as new member of the
EQCB. She said Member Porter got rave reviews from Councilmember Boyd.
,-
..
OJ
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Ouality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Scheduled Matters
Bixbv Old Towne Center - Receiot of Public Comments and Board Review
Meetina Fonnat
Vice Chairperson McGuire suggested it would be helpful to review the fonnat of tonight's meeting.
The Board members reviewed what materials remained from prior meetings and how they felt
new questions and consultant presentations should be scheduled.
MOTION by Voce; SECOND Hur1ey for the EOCB to continue with the consultant overview
response to the questions posed on August 26th, after which new questions will be addressed.
If that is not concluded by 9:00 p.m., the EOCB will stop and deliberate on how they are going to
proceed, given the possibility of having another meeting time on Tuesday, September 8.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
5-0-0
Porter, Jones, Voce, McGuire, Hur1ey
Table A
Member Hurley said it seemed that on the questions for 9-2-98, page 2, it refers to Table A and
asked if Table A could be identified, as it was not here.
Ms. Culbertson said Table A will be an overhead; extra copies will be provided on the table.
Handouts for the Public
Mr. Whittenberg said that while Table A is provided to EOCB members, people in the audience
should note there are a number of handouts on the table. Some of these were handouts from
previous meetings. He enumerated what the handouts were.
Summary
Member Hurley said the Summary includes the additional and revised mitigation. He asked if
these were the sum total of the changes in the DEIR for the FEIR?
Mr. Whittenberg said those were the changes to the mitigation measures from the DEIR. There
are other corrections to the document that have not been given to the EOCB because they are
typographical errors or grammar errors.
Mr. Steele said they are not provided in a document like this, they're in the Responses to
Comments volume.
Public Infonnation
Vice Chairperson McGuire infonned the audience that all the documents are in the local libraries
for reference.
Consultant Presentation
Andi Culbertson introduced herself as President of Culbertson, Adams & Associates, the City's
environmental consultant for this project. She pointed out that there are revisions to the EIR to
ensure that they have shown the correction to what was originally referred to as the College Park
East Alternative. It has been re-named as Alternative J.
Member Hurley interrupted,.asking what the new name is?
Ms. Culbertson said the new name is Alternative J.
After the August 26, 1998 EOCB meeting the consultants decided to prepare a handout, which is,
entitled Questions for 9-2-98 EQCB Meeting. They started with the questions they didn't answer
orally at the last meeting and ended with a repetition of the 13 questions and answers that they
2
'oO
..~
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
addressed. They will start with material that was somewhat covered in either their presentation or
their commentary last time. ,
Q. Where Is the 405 bridge in the mitigation concept plan of Seal Beach Boulevard?
A. The 405 bridge was shown first in Figure 23a of the EIR, the mitigation concept. This is
the mitigation concept for the 405 bridge (overhead shown). There are two exhibits in the
EIR, 23.a and 23.b that show the mitigation concepts that were proposed for the
measures. The only thing that was missing from the EIR, which has, since been provided
in the Response to Comments and the FEIR, was a request from a commenter to show
the improvements on Lampson Avenue Avenue. Those have been drawn and shown.
Q. Dr. Rosenman/Oral Comments: Demonstrate current and future traffic Impacts in
terms that lay persons could understand. For example, transit time for the 405
North off-ramp to Katella A venue now and after buildout. Similar data for the
completion of Lampson A venue.
A. Dr. Rosenman observed the answer was non-responsive. The consultant does not
believe it was non-responsive. This data is not possible to generate effectively without a
sub-area computer model. The City does not have one. There is only one model
operating in this area for traffic. It's a regional model administered by the County of
Orange and Orange County Transportation Authority. It's polygons, or the geographic
areas from which it draws traffic, are much too large to do delay analyses. That's an
ordinary and natura! result out of a sub-area computer model. One transportation
planner compared it'to her in this way, to do a delay analysis for Seal Beach Boulevard
from the 405 to Kate II a by hand, was like asking someone to compute all the calculations
to send a man to the moon from earth. The City does not possess a sub-area model,
they are very expensive, but useful, tools. The perfonnance of the road can be inferred
in a few ways:
e Level of Service (LOS) perfonnance --- A, B, C, 0, E, F - is the recognized
way of looking at the LOS of the road. Mr. Beretto has a thumbnail sketch of
LOS and what you can expect in delay. This is very average and generic but
generally a good rule-of-thumb.
LOS A: This is free-flow, very little delay, less than 5 seconds per vehicle.
LOS B: This is 5.1 to 15 seconds per vehicle. A rural design. An urban
design in Orange County begins at LOS C.
LOS C: 15.1 to 25 seconds per vehicle delay
LOS 0: Maximum urban design 25 - 40 seconds per vehicle delay.
(
I
LOS E and F: Forced flows. Delays of 60 seconds or more.
Examine Table 23, page 5-86 of the EIR, shows that these are the LOS you're dealing
with. (Overhead shown). This column shows the 1997 existing traffic conditions. These
are the 6 impacted intersections for this project. The next column indicates the morning
and evening peak figures. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is shown and goes
through the following scenarios:
I
e 1997 Existing traffic conditions; when they started preparing this EIR.
e 2001 Background traffic. Cumulative effect of traffic over which you have no
control.
3
..
;;.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
o 2000 Traffic plus the project traffic. The project's impact, is it significant in
the scheme of things.
o Future conditions with improvements. The relationship of columns 3, 5 and 6
is what is at the heart of the EIR review. You want to know the cumulative
impact of the project plus all the background traffic is. You see a lot of bad
grades down here. You look to Future Conditions with Improvements and
you see that your student's report card is improving because improvements
not only create more capacity but resolve congestion problems. This is a
good indication. You can easily see a particular intersection moves from
LOS D to LOS C etc. The LOSs are moving up to lesser delays. How much
delay can not be ascertained without a sub-area computer model.
[People calling out questions cannot be heard on the tape].
Ms. Culbertson said it would be helpful to get through the presentation in its
entirety: because it may answer some of these questions. The Vice-
Chairperson said she would appreciate that. But she said that in defense of
the people calling out questions, she too drives St. Cloud Drive every
morning and it's a really big issue that St. Cloud Drive is not addressed. It's
backed up into Seal Beach Boulevard every moming. She has waited as
long as 5 minutes at Katella Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. Ms.
Culbertson said the improvements are not in as the Vice Chairperson
McGuire travels her 5-minute delay. In a similar manner, the improvements
are not in at St. Cloud Drive but they will be brought in by the project through
a signal progression.
Member Hurley asked ifthis table is in the DEIR? Ms. Culbertson said the table
being shown is a distillation from a table in the DEIR, which is much larger. This
table shows the 6 impacted intersections to give a flavor for the delay analysis. It
shows the improvements in LOS. The EIR studies many intersections. Mr.
Steele advised it is Table 23.
Q.
How can the traffic mitigation measures improve traffic flow without
improving freeway on-ramps? Where the freeway meets the on-ramp as
opposed to where the surface street meets the on-ramp, don't the
bottleneck's remain?
A.
The recommended traffic improvements are intended to improve the traffic
conditions and the roadway capacity of Seal Beach Boulevard and not the 405
freeway. Why? Because this is a project that is not a freeway-attractor
projected. This project will get most of its patronage from surface streets in the
City of Seal Beach. This project does not have a major attractor. Evaluation of
the 4 signalized intersections along Seal Beach Boulevard from Lampson
Avenue to the 405 southbound ramps at Beverly Manor Road indicate that
additional lanes are needed to improve traffic flow through the interchange and
segment of Seal Beach Boulevard immediately north of the freeway. These
would be regional improvements that would normally be conducted by Caltrans
and OCTA.' The recommended roadway improvements in Seal Beach consist
primarily of widening the major arterial to provide a third northbound and third
southbound through lane. The recommended improvements also include
widening th'e Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge over the 1-405 to provide 2 additional
through lanes, an auxiliary ramp merge lane, divided median sidewalks and
bicycle lanes. The bridge only has 4 lanes now. The recommended mitigation
measures for Seal Beach Boulevard in the DEIR are completely consistent with
the City's S'eal Beach Boulevard designation as a major arterial. That means
4
!,.
;.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
that in adding these lanes it is building out the master plan Circulation Element
for the City and not expanding the road beyond that.
I
Q.
Would you please show us how you got there with the ITE numbers and
corresponding SANDAG improvements?
A.
(Overhead ~hown of ITE-SANDAG table). This has been of great interest to
everyone and all the information is in the DEIR. They have extrapolated it out
and shown the essence of what some of the questions have been. Ms.
Culbertson went through the table. The left column shows a land use reference,
which is a designator on the tables for traffic. She will next tell you a daily trip
generation equation rate. She will tell you the size of the Old Ranch Towne
Center in thousands of square feet, then multiply a simple product - the raw
daily trip generation. Then she will do the diverted trip reduction, which is
different between the two methodologies, the pass-by trip reduction and come up
with the final trip number. She went through this for each table.
Starting with ITE, which is what is used in the EIR. Land Use Code 820 -
Shopping Center was used. This is the proper code to use for this project. This
daily trip generation is 47.6 trips per 1,000 square feet of that type of shopping
center. Again, they said they would express the shopping center size in
thousand square feet. That is 286.967. This they simply multiply it in the product
in a raw number, which is 13,660 trips. Both methodologies require that you
further address refinements.
The first refinement is Diverted Trip Reduction. Not used in the ITE
methodolog1y. We go to the pass-by trip reduction. A reduction factor of 30% is
required in the ITE numbers. We take the raw number of 13,660 you multiply
that by .30 and that is what you must deduct from 13,600 -- 4,100 trips. Down
here, you're final trip generation, 13,660 minus 0 which is diverted trip reduction,
because ITE doesn't use it, minus for 4,100 for 9560 primary trips from the
shopping center.
Moving to SANDAG, the SANDAG descriptor for this type of use is commercial
retail community center. Again, it has a trip table like ITE but it says 70 trips per
1,000 square feet of shopping center. Again, the s~me size shopping center.
Again 70 x 286.967 for 20,090 trips. Now to the refinements. Unlike ITE,
SANDAG has a diverted trip refinement -- reduction factor 31%. Take 20,090 x
.31 = 6,230 trips which are deducted from the 20,090. What is the pass-by trip
reduction on SANDAG? It's 22% less than ITE. But SANDAG has a diverted trip
reduction, which ITE does not. Multiply by 22%, deduct 4420, therefore the
equation becomes 20,090 (your raw number) minus 6230 (your number from
diverted trips that SANDAG requires) minus 4420 (you pass-by trip reduction) for
a total of 9,440 trips. Look at the difference. There's 120 trips difference
between these two methodologies when properly calculated. This is nothing.
This is how;traffic engineers for the commercial center compute ITE and
SANDAG. l'able A is available for handout.
Member Jones said this is a very close number for two methodologies to come
up with something that's about 1 % in proximity of one another. Ms. Culbertson
agreed. One of the things Linscott, Law & Greenspan (traffic engineering firm)
called to her attention that ITE and all traffic trip tables tend to do "bracketing".
They find the size of the center --- is it between 200,000 and 300,000 square
feet? As you approach 300,000 square feet you fall into another category but the
trip generation is lower. In every case, even though the figures are very close,
the traffic engineers erred on the side of over-estimating the number of traffic
5
>-
;.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Emfironmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
!
because that is the worst-case of whether an EIR works. All of this information is
contained in ITE and SANDAG methodology tables. There is nothing different
here than is in the EIR. The overhead presentation's format is different in order
to show the point.
Q. Why, in your use of the ITE trip generation data, did you use an average of
a wide range? You should have used a one-sigma number which,
according to ITE data, is 62% greater than the average.
A. Linscott, Law & Greenspan's answer is unlike SANDAG, ITE recommends the
utilization of 3 logarithmic equations to forecast the daily AM peak hour and PM
peak hour traffic generation potential of a shopping center. The three equations
used to forecast the trip generation potential of the project are provided in ITE's
trip generation, 5th edition. ITE used the wide range of data to develop these
questions. This is a correction. When ITE does their numbers they compensate
for the bell curve in their range. ITE's numbers for here are based on 200 or 300
studies. They have compensated for virtually every manifestation. That's why a
lot of traffic I~ngineers enjoy using ITE instead of SANDAG. The study population
is much larger and is considered more reliable. It's used by most transportation
agencies in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
Mr. Anisman called out from the audience but could not be heard on the audiotape.
Ms. Culbertson said she thought it would be best to finish this presentation.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said she wanted to hear what Mr. Anisman had to say
because that was the format of the last EQCB meeting.
Mr. Anisman (No address aiven)
Mr. Anisman said he believed this is where the data comes from (showing an overhead
projection). The 820 designation for this type of use. And it's a plot of the average trip
generator as a function of the square footage of the property, the development. If you
look at this data which shows a very wide spread. What the analysis does is take an
average, which is a best fit of this data, which you can think of as an average, from this
wide spread. You can tell that there are some centers that are going to have a lot less
traffic and some that are going to be a lot larger. The lot larger could be as much as 70%
larger. So, the claim that this is a conservative, worst-case analysis and result is not true.
This could very well. be an understated amount of traffic and it could very well be 70%
greater. That shoul~ be acknowledged by the report.
!
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked Mr. Anisman to leave the overhead on the screen and
remain at the microphone. She asked if the traffic engineers were present because the
Board would like to have their comments on Mr. Anisman's comments. At the last
meeting she was most comfortable with the fact that there was interaction between the
Board, the consultant and the audience.
Paul Wilkinson. Princioal at Linscott. Law & Greensoan
Mr. Wilkinson said their firm prepared the traffic portion of the DEIR. Mr. Anisman is
correct in that this is the table directly from the ITE rate equations. He does make the
point of what is generally referred to as a scatter diagram. The best fit equation, a
regression equation, as to a fitted curve to develop information for this. The commenter
makes the point that it could be 70% more -- it could also be 70% less. In point of fact,
there are norms that the traffic engineering profession uses in terms of rules of
engagement for preparing these types of studies. Trip generation is one aspect; highway
capacity is another ~spect. We could go out and count all the intersections around here
and determine what the actual saturation flow rates are. We've used number of 1,600
and 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour and I can show you studies where is says 2,100 to
2,300 vehicles per lane. That would make all the capacity values look better. We are
I
1
6
>-
~
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
1
1
taking what the profession considers to be the middle-of-the-road worst-case analysis.
Recall that the numbers we use off this table are only one set of numbers in an array of
numbers that we use to prepare the analysis. When we estimate trips, we basically send
those trips within the analysis off the page. We presume very little. When you look at an
exhibit within the traffic impact study that talks about traffic impacts, they start at the
project site and unless there's a little 1 % drivel that ends here or there, they basically go
off the page. There is no decay in those traffic volumes and they are presumed to go on
forever throughout the analysis area. And we find that analysis area by looking at how
far we have to reach among all these intersections to be sure none of them is exceeded
by 1 % criteria. If w~ double the impact at an intersection where you have a 1 % impact,
that's a 2% impact. . It potentially would overstate the characteristics. We've given away
8% of the capacity in growth. We've given another 25,000 or 26,000 vehicles per day in
terms of growth for other projects that mayor may not happen. Sometimes there is a
tendency to lose sight of what the mission of the impact study is and focus to details like
this. While the details like this are important they are certainly are not things that haven't
been considered within the traffic engineering profession before. We're licensed to do it
this way.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked what he meant by we're losing sight of the mission?
Mr. Wilkinson said the mission is to determine what the impacts of the project are within a
cumulative setting and determine what measures are available or needed within that
cumulative setting, which includes existing traffic, grown for some specific rate and
development with other cumulative development in a future horizon year with what they
consider to be a worst-case impact analysis looking at 26 intersections for 4 scenarios at
AM and PM peaks and determining a comprehensive mitigation list.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked if this was based on averages or medians?
Mr. Wilkinson said 6ne aspect of the data is a median, just like the capacity values are a
median and so on. For the trip generation, it's based on a fitted curve from 300 studies.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said she was asking this question because "I have a lot of
problems with the data".
Mr. Wilkinson said he could appreciate that but assured her that this is the way they are
licensed to do this study.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said she could understand this but it's different when you live
in an area. Then you look at the numbers and you know the numbers aren't right. She
asked if someone in the audience named Irwin had a comment.
Mr. Anisman said the usage of a project does matter. In contrast to what the consultant
has said, they don't, take the usage into consideration. In discussions with other
consultants, like S~NDAG, they told him that it does. A development like a big box retail
has to be factored into the data which he didn't think was done in this case.
Vice Chairperson M,cGuire said she'd like this issue settled because she has a lot of
problems with the uses issue.
,
,
Mr. Wilkinson asked for the table re the big box retail to be shown. Ms. Culbertson said
one thing that strikes her, as a planner, is that if the data in ITE is off, why did SANDAGS
computations match up so well? In other words, if ITE data's descriptor is making a
mistake, then you would expect to see a wide variance between SANDAG and ITE as
computed; there's a tiny difference. You don't have to be a traffic engineer to see that if
7
;
.
1
2
3
4
5
~
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
they're that far off -- 70% --- you would see a difference between the two methodologies.
There isn't.
Vice Chairperson McGuire commented that when she looked at the numbers and the
draft she timed the times on the chart. She did her own surveys. She has to trust her
own eyes. As a person who lives here and makes these drives during peak hours, she
knows the numbers are wrong and those times are wrong. She is having trouble with the
land use issue because the capacity of the church and the uses of the church aren't
taken into consideration.
Ms. Culbertson said that has not been gotten to yet. Mr. Wilkinson is about to show you
are how this data prove-up in the field. He will show you this and take you through this
table. But if you, Madam Chairman, a different result than two traffic methodologies and
an on-the-ground center then "I respectfully submit you're going to make a lot of money
as a traffic engineer ... It's trying to know the unknowable".
Vice Chairperson McGuire said she agreed with Mr. Anisman where he was looking at
other than the median and that land use issues really playa part. We seem to be
shooting for a median but she didn't think we have an average situation here.
Mr. Wilkinson clarified that there was a comment made that the consultants don't
consider land uses. ' Actually the trip generation characteristics we found to be more
consistent to be based on land use size than any type of abstract label that you can apply
to the center. ITE started out the way SANDAG did - by bracketing things. That was
abandoned about 10 - 15 years ago because they found it just didn't make sense. When
you have the threshold value, the margin value and where the rate changes at 300,000
square feet and you have a center of 290,000 square feet and you increase it to 302,000
square feet the trip generation goes down? Does that make sense? Probably not --- not
for crossing the threshold by 2,000 square feet. However, they do consider uses but
keep in mind that retail centers tend to go through different life cycles, based on the
tenancy types. What's hot now may not be hot in the future. Big box is hot now and has
been for a number of years. But it may not always be hot. Therefore, they try to build trip
generation envelopes around the categories of use that may inhabit this type of shopping
center. This table provides a summary. There is some indication of concem re the
theory be ITE versus the actual practice. To backtrack, all the ITE trip generation factors
were not pulled out of the air. They are the result of about 20 - 25 years of traffic
generation experience. The ITE trip generation manual came out in 1979. Before that,
Caltrans used to compile trip generation data. When you see ITE is the national
reference, typically it started with Caltrans data. This data is collected by people on a
street comer with a board or by a road tube stretched across a road --- that's how traffic
counts are taken. There's a problem using a road tube in a shopping center because to
get an accurate count those cars have to cross the road tube squarely. Otherwise one
car is counted as two cars. One of the reasons they don't use SANDAG is that twenty
years ago their firm looked at the SANDAG sites and they were counting them wrong.
Using a road tube it's virtually impossible to get a count that's not overstated. He then
showed Table A and went over its components as they related to a shopping center in
Mission Viejo, which was very similar to the proposed project. The figures, based on
actual usage, were 40.2 trips per thousand. That was not long after the center opened
and it was not totally occupied. Based on the actual field study of this site, were 8,750
daily trips versus a forecast of 10,310 trips. It was 50% less than the published rate in
ITE. That's just one example. ITE has a 6th Edition, which, if applied, might inch the
rates down a bit more. "It is somewhat of a crystal-balling but I assure you, it's crystal-
balling in our best professional judgment. And based on empirical experience. Traffic
engineers deal with traffic and human behavior ... we do make our best effort to provide
you with the best possible data and projections we can and this is just one example".
8
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
Vice Chairperson McGuire said, "I doubt that. Mr. Hurley. do you remember your
question?"
Mr. Hurley withdrew his question.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked what street the Mission Viejo study was on?
Mr. Wilkinson said it's Cabot Road.
Ms. Culbertson said its Cabot Road, between La Paz and Oso Parkway.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked how many other main streets are near this center?
Mr. Wilkinson said that's the only way in, via Cabot Road.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said Oso Parkway is a major street itself. Something she
found curious is that this City only has one major north/south street that everybody has to
use. That makes this City unique and she didn't see this uniqueness taken into account.
She brings this up because there's development occurring north and south of us and
everything that happens has to go on Seal Beach Boulevard. When they were
discussing the St. Cloud Drive issue they were saying that area's getting worse because
people are cutting through there. She sat in the shopping center this past week and
watched it happen. Oso Parkway is not really that backed up. Cabot Road is a decent
sized street and there's lots of ways in and out that are taking pressure off that main
street.
Mr. Wilkinson said the traffic generation characteristic is the one driveway that services
that site. This is all at the one single access point. The question was trip generation
versus trip generation. Now, in terms of traffic distribution assignment, which is the
spread of the traffic on that street system, from an analytical point of view, we know Seal
Beach Boulevard is the only north/south street to put traffic on. That's where that traffic
went in the analysis. We had no other place to put it and basically it disburses to the ends
of the page and the traffic is counted for. Granted there may be times you may
experience delay at an intersection. Because of the way traffic signals are timed it's very
difficult to get an overall cycle length of fewer than 2 to 2.5 minutes. If you miss it on the
first opportunity you may wait again sometimes. Characteristically, what happens is that
the movements that get cut off first are the left turns. The traffic controllers will typically
preserve the capacity on the main street. Based on the traffic impact study, including a
Katella Avenue smart street (not in place yet), the LOS will be as good or better in the
future as they are now. We've given away a lot of background traffic growth for
unspecified projects to put this in that worst-case analysis.
The Vice-Chairperson said i'n the NOP the EQCB asked for additional data on the smart
street program so they could learn what was going to happen on Katella Avenue. She
hadn't seen it yet.
Mr. Wilkinson said the improvements identified as mitigation measures echo what the
improvements are at that intersection. Basically Katella Avenue is going to become a 6
to 8 lane highway continuously through that area. There will be dual lane tum pockets
everywhere much like has been done on Beach Blvd. The improvements at that location
that they have identified as part of the improved conditions reflect specifically what is
coming out of the smart street improvements.
Matt Stein * Rossmoor Homeowners Association
He thanked Ms. Culbertson for taking the time to generate Table A. He said that this is
one data point and ITE has 300 data points. Item #2 (referring to the overhead) has no
9
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Q.
33
34
35 A.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
notation and he asked if that is 1995 or current? There have been many changes in the
area since 1995. Does the consultant's existing traffic reflect the same kind of worst-
case scenario that the ITE data supposedly reflects? The ITE is the median data. Was
the existing traffic taken at the same time or did they look at peak times?
,
Mr. Wilkinson said it's basically a weekday traffic count, a series of several weekdays
where the data -- [can't hear tape due to two people talking at once]. Not long after the
center opened ... unique ... and we found there was an initial surge in the traffic
generation characteristic of the center because people aren't familiar with it. Even if
they're not familiar with it, they are attracted to it and go see it.
Mr. Stein asked if ~r. Wilkerson had driven the area at peak hours? Mr. Wilkerson said
yes.
Ms. Culbertson informed the Board that the shopping center in Mission Viejo was her
project to get approved, she represented the Mission Viejo Company. She has
represented this company for the last twenty years. They have two major planned
communities in southern Orange County --- one 6,600 acres in size with 20,000 units and
another that is 11,000 acres in size with 32,000 units. This particular project is part of the
latter community. She was most mindful of how the traffic study was done for this project
because there was one way to get into this project via a public utilities commission
approved bridge over the AT&SF railroad. They had one chance to be right. No
commercial developer will do one of two things --- provide too little parking or provide too
little access because the center will die. They were being very conservative and cautious
as millions of dollars were at stake in widening that bridge. The bridge was widened
deliberately based on the traffic numbers. The center works very well. She underscored
the point that planners must deal with measures, such as LOS. It is not unusual to
experience delay or an inconvenience while traveling a large roadway system and tuming
onto it, particularly if you're turning onto it from a smaller street. Preference is given to
the major arterial in signal progression.
Why did you ignor,e the Rossmoor Homeowner's Association Request for cut-thru
traffic mitigation by offsetting the entrance/exit driveway from St Cloud Drive?
They did not ignore this, they considered it. However, they did not recommend it for the
following reasons: (1) it is standard practice in site-access planning and design to align
proposed signalized access points. This is done because you don't want two signals
very close together to access points. To off-set them you'd have a situation where you'd
have one signal that is serving an intersection and the other intersection is not served
and that's dangerous for the persons using the unsignalized intersection. Furthermore, if
you decide to signalize them both, and they're too close together, it's a difficult matter
visually for the driver if they have the red signal and the one beyond is green, people go
for the green. In tr~ffic engineering design you have adequate distance between signals
or you align them in; a non- T intersection configuration offour-way. Also, the more
signals you have on the road the more delay you will have on that road. Signals cause
friction and increase congestion on roads. They are for safety not for increased
performance in most cases. Aligning driveways then reduces safety impacts as well.
This is a reason they support the four-way intersection. Installing a traffic diverter at the
center of Seal Beach Boulevard at St. Cloud Drive would result in elimination of
movements as well. They are now possible under the current design. One movement
would be north/south left turns from Seal Beach Boulevard to St. Cloud Drive or to Bixby
Old Ranch Towne Center. Or, east/westbound left turns from St. Cloud Drive or Bixby
Old Ranch Towne Center to Seal Beach Boulevard. A diverter would eliminate those two
movements.
10
.
1 Q.
2
3 A.
4
5 Q.
6
7 A.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Q.
15
16
17
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
Mr. Stein asked about the performance of the Mission Viejo center.
This data has been covered and this question was skipped over.
,
How much of your church data included 3,600 seat churches?
(Graphic presented). The trip generation rate and equation used to forecast the traffic
generation potential of the proposed church is based on information published in ITE's
Land Use Code 560. A number of 7 trip generation studies were conducted in 1976,
1980 and 1984 to determination those generation rates in ITE. The size of churches
studied range between 360 square feet and 50,000 square feet in size. This church is
125,000 square feet.
Is there a substantive difference, other than just your normal increase by square
footage, between a church 300 square feet to 50,000 square feet in size and a
125,000 square foot church based on the information we have today on what the
church is?
She emphasized that the information they are working with is a 125,000 square foot
church with 3,600 seats. They consulted with the City of Garden Grove on the Crystal
Cathedral and with the City of Mission Viejo on the Saddleback Community Church. The
Saddleback Community Church has a projected 10,000 seats. That is currently going
through an environmental documentation. Most people arrive 2.5 or 2.75 persons to an
automobile. This is a good idea for a relationship between seats and attendees. It
compared quite accurately to the ITE study. Those are the two biggest churches they
could find. The 10,OOO-seat church is only partially built. The Crystal Cathedral is a very
large church. They have two services a day and 2,500 people per service, arriving at 2.75
per car. Being conservative they used the figure at 2.5 to ensure the traffic estimation is
correct.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked what are the other uses at the Crystal Cathedral ---
other than the Sunday services? Were those considered?
Ms. Culbertson said they had information from the City of Garden Grove, much like the
information on the Mission View Freeway Center. They were asking them for traffic
intensity numbers. They did not ask what other land uses they had. They were
interested in was what type of vortex for traffic is created by that church Monday thru
Sunday, not just Sunday.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said that answered her question.
Mr. stein said if it's true that in this study and this DEIR that we're building all our
assumptions on a church-only use, then he would propose a mitigation measure that
clearly states that the church is to be used for Sunday only. Otherwise, you may need to
include the other uses in the transportation/traffic analysis.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked if the Crystal Cathedral was using data from Sunday
only and Ms. Culbertson said they were using data from all 7 days. She thought Mr.
Whittenberg answered that last time also.
J
Mr. steele said the church use and the ancillary uses would all require Conditional Use
Permits; this has not been applied for. This is only a concept for a zone change. It
doesn't permit a specific use to be built on that property. The law already is that before a
church use is established on that property, the person who wants to establish a church
use would have to Gome back to the City if this concept is approved, apply for and
receive a CUP. At that time the environmental documentation would have to be done
11
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
again for that particular use. The law today is more restrictive than the condition you're
proposing. It already says you have to come back and get a discretionary permit to
establish the church use. No permits are proposed as part of this concept - it's just the
overall zoning that's being proposed.
Ms. Culbertson asked the Chair to note the ITE code and to see all the items included in
the calculation. It's :not just a worship service that's included. It's assumed that it
functions as a comrhunity facility essentially. It would have other functions. Note the
peak traffic generating hours are not limited to Sundays.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said that if they applied for a CUP they'd have to re-do the
environmental process. Her question was that if those uses are already stated, why
would they have to come back for another environmental document?
Mr. Steele said they would have to come back. Depending on the specifics of the use, at
the very least an Initial Study would be done under CEQA to determine whether this
particular study was adequate based on what was proposed or whether some additional
study would have to be done. The same is true with the uses once they're actually
established. At the commercial center, if they want a CUP for an alcohol-related use at a
restaurant, an Initial Study would be done.
Ms. Culbertson said the test would be whether the new impacts would be more severe
that were predicted in this EIR. That's what the analysis is for. If the new impacts are
more severe, a new study is needed.
Milt Petersen * Rossmoor Homeowner's Association
Mr. Petersen said oile of the problems they're having is the documents show the
consultants were given "Sunday only" information and that's what was analyzed. He said
he didn't have any idea what they analyzed. But today, they're being told they looked at
non-Sunday uses. He felt it is confusing for those people who are trying to follow this
process very carefully. It seems like a dichotomy. If there was a misunderstanding
perhaps it could be cleared up quickly.
Ms. Culbertson said she did not remember any statement she made that they were only
looking at Sunday u,ses.
Mr. Petersen said he would pull out that material and the break and give it to Ms.
Culbertson.
Vice Chairperson McGuire told Mr. Petersen she would also like to see that material at
the break. She said she wasn't clear that the data for the church included any more than
Sunday services. I
Ms. Culbertson said the Board didn't get to this question at the last meeting. This is still
in the group of questions that were not answered at that last meeting.
j
Vice Chairperson McGuire said she remembers that they were discussing the NOP
process and we discussed this way back when.
Ms. Culbertson said the traffic study would not have been done at that point.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said that when she got into the document it wasn't clear to her
that these were not just Sunday figures.
12
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Enyironmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
f
1 Q. What specific improvements will be made to improve the flow of traffic at Seal
2 Beach Boulevard and St Cloud Drive?
3
4 A. The improvements proposed at the intersection consist of constructing an access
5 driveway opposite St. Cloud Drive and modifying the traffic signal to provide for safe
6 access and egress from the center. The specific improvements that will improve the flow
7 on Seal Beach Bou!~vard past St. Cloud Drive consist of widening the east side to
8 provide a third northbound and a third southbound thru lane on Seal Beach Boulevard.
9
10 Member Hurley asked if the consultants felt the traffic impacts on St. Cloud Drive were
11 significant enough to warrant any improvement? The question is, improve the flow of
12 traffic at Seal Beach Boulevard and St. Cloud Drive --- which should include both streets.
13
14 Ms. Culbertson said the traffic engineers felt the modification of the traffic signal would
15 assist in relieving the tension in that movement now on St. Cloud Drive.
16
17 Jim Sartain · Rossmoor
18 Mr. Sartain said tha~ was his question. He said he's just a poor old country boy who has
19 trouble understanding some of this stuff. We're going to widen Seal Beach Boulevard by
20 two lanes. But on the next page it says it's not going to be widened at all because we're
21 going to save the trees.
22
23 Ms. Culbertson said the question is at Seal Beach Boulevard and St. Cloud Drive the
24 length of this side along Seal Beach Boulevard is long and there are different
25 improvements based on where you are along the frontage. This question we read is
26 specifically asking about the improvements at Seal Beach Boulevard and St. Cloud Drive.
27 ~
28 Mr. Sartain said he didn't understand why that should make a difference. Then he asked
29 if she was only talking about widening Seal Beach Boulevard south of St. Cloud Drive?
30 And then what happens when you get to the bridge?
31 I
32 Ms. Culbertson said yes, widening Seal Beach Boulevard only south of St. Cloud Drive.
33 When you get to the bridge you widen the bridge. Right now the widening is a regional
34 project. The re-striping for the lanes can be undertaken within the current right-of-way.
35 The widening is a regional project that the City will partially fund and the City she
36 believed is on lists for grants for the remaining funds.
37
38 Mr. Whittenberg saib the City has set aside funds through OCTA and Measure M
39 program for 50% o(the cost of widening the bridge and improving the on and off ramps at
40 Seal Beach Boulevard. The remaining portions of that money are a City responSibility.
41 This particular project, if approved, would pay a significant amount of impact fees to the
42 City that would pretty much cover that City share of the cost. So between what is already
43 set aside through the Measure M program and what will be available to the City from this
44 project, if approved, that is how that bridge would be widened.
45
46 Mr. Sartain asked if;'there is any kind of a date for the widening of the bridge?
47
48 Mr. Whittenberg said that depends on whether this project is approved or not. If this
49 project is not approved, the City will have about 1.5 million dollars short of having the
50 money. At this point there is no definite answer to that question.
51
52 [Could not hear first part of speaking]. Ms. Culbertson said ... to capture the trees from
53 what was originally .proposed. That's why the trees are saved.
54
55
56
13
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
Patricia Hale Alexander * Rossmoor Homeowner's Association
Ms. Alexander said there's an existing signal at St. Cloud Drive and there are traffic
problems at peak hours. There's no f1ow-thru traffic at St. Cloud Drive so that the signals
are arranged so that people who are poised to tum left or right won't have a problem. If
they build a four-way, the main thing will be feeding the shopping center, not letting
people from Rossmoor in and out of Rossmoor. She also questioned truck traffic. No
matter what is said, this is going to create problems for Rossmoor residents.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said she was not sure whether the mitigation measure just
wasn't understood or whether people don't agree with it. She proceeded to take a survey
of how many people don't understand the mitigation measure for St. Cloud Drive?
Ms. Culbertson said there may be an existing timing problem on the signal at St. Cloud
Drive that is causing this concem because St. Cloud Drive's numbers show very good
service levels at the intersection. In Southern Orange County, when many cities were
incorporated, many of the residents didn't want traffic to come thru the very large arterial
system. They readjusted the timing of the signals so you virtually had to stop everywhere
you went. Small streets had very large preferences on tripping the signals to make them
green for them and red for the major arterial. A signal analyst to see if there's something
currently wrong with the signal can check this. The volumes on the street and the
manner in which it is working now by accounts do not indicate that problem. If you wait
through a signal one progression that is not LOS F --- even a peak hour. That is just part
of living in an urban arterial setting and going from a small to a large street.
Mariorie Whitney * Rossmoor
Ms. Whitney said she lives on the corner of Rowena and St. Cloud Drive. One of the
things not addressed is the type of drive that goes on this street. They have a lot of
people from Leisure World, where the speed limit is 25 MPH, come out onto Seal Beach
Boulevard where the traffic is flowing much faster. This is a very difficult change for an
older person who has been driving very slowly to change to the current and faster
requirements on Seal Beach Boulevard. Many shop at Rossmoor Center. Drivers try to
make left tums from Rossmoor Center onto St. Cloud Drive. There have been several
accidents trying to do this. If the traffic flow increases by 490/0 in the morning and 65% in
the evening it's going to be very difficult for drivers to come out and tum left there.
Especially for the Leisure World drivers who need more time? How would this be
addressed?
The Chair said that, in the interest of time, if an issue has been addressed it doesn't need
to be addressed again. It has been noted that there is a problem with the public in
regards to the mitigation measure on St. Cloud Drive. That's where we have to leave it.
Let's have this be the last question with a five-minute recess afterward.
Bill Petersen * Rossmoor Homeowners Association
Mr. Petersen asked what are the improvements along Lampson Avenue?
Mr. Whittenberg --- discussing the signalized intersection and indicates the current entry
points for the golf course. It is being proposed to line up with the intersection of
Basswood, which will be a fully signalized intersection. The entrance to the driving range
will be directly across from the entrance to the hotel/Marriott Senior Care facility. The
driveway to a parkirig lot area and a driving range will basically be located along
Lampson Avenue Avenue, that area generally closest to the freeway now.
Dorothy Whyte. Colleoe Park East
Ms. Whyte said there is no curb cut, you cannot go straight across from that driveway into
the driving range.
14
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
Mr. Whittenberg said there will left turn movements into either one of these locations.
Someone coming from Seal Beach Boulevard onto Lampson Avenue will be able to make
a left tum across Lampson Avenue into the driving range parking lot.
Ms. Whyte said there are now two driveways and asked about the turning movements.
Mr. Whittenberg said you could make any tuming movement out of this intersection that
you wish to make.
Ms. Whyte said but with the other one you can't. People will have to turn right, go over to
College Park east, turn around and go back.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that this entrance is really a service entry for the Senior Care
facility. It's not its primary entrance for the hotel and the senior care facility.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked Mr. Whittenberg to point to the tennis facilities.
Mr. Whittenberg indicated the location of the tennis facilities and noted that as proposed,
this facility would be dedicated to the City of Seal Beach. There was an earlier proposal
for Marriott to build their facility at this site. That proposal was withdrawn when the Bixby
proposal was submi,tted and they have now submitted the application for the location
adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard.
Ms. Whyte asked if there would be left turn lanes there, noting Lampson Avenue is now
two lanes?
Mr. Whittenberg said there would be left turn pockets at that intersection so as not to
block the thru-Iane traffic on Lampson Avenue Avenue.
The Chair asked for staff to point to something on the overhead, so the speaker could
see where the two left lanes are.
Ms. Whyte said it didn't seem like that coincided with that.
Ms. Whyte said her other question was the other alternative proposed for the church was
housing. She aske~ ho~ many units was that and would any of those be used to satisfy
the low/moderate income housing requirement by the City? Are any of those satisfy
housing requirements from another project in another part of town, for example, the
HeUman Ranch?
The Chair said 125 tho uses were mentioned in
Ms. Culbertson said it was 125 detached houses. There is no site plan for them and so
there is no further information on what they will be.
The Chair said if that was considered, we don't know if that will fulfill that requirement or
not.
Ms. Whyte asked when would we know?
Ms. Culbertson said we would know that answer when a site plan is proposed or when a
tract map is proposed.
The Chair noted it was 8:45 p.m. and asked Member Voce how many questions were left.
It was indicated 6 questions remained.
15
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
Members Jones suggested the Board answer the remaining 6 questions by 10:00 p.m.
and adjourn at that time.
Members Porter suggested the Board read the questions and get an answer to each.
Member Hurley said he was in favor of answering all questions tonight --- considering
what the Board has facing them next week.
Member Voce suggested answering the questions tonight, adding that the Board adjoum
at 10:00 p.m. and whatever is not answered be submitted to the consultant for
extemporaneous ariswers for next week's meeting.
The Chair asked if any of the questions were redundant?
Member Voce said it would be hard to tell, as he had not read through them.
The Chair asked for a five-minute recess. She said she'd like to finish the questions but
would like to have a time frame of 10:15 p.m., thus closing down at 10:07 p.m. Then
adjoum to the next meeting.
RECESS
RECONVENE
The Chair said as a point of interest, she was in a conversation during the recess, she
noted that this meeting doesn't address quality of life issues. It doesn't discuss whether
you like or dislike the project. These meetings pertain to whether the data is adequate?
Are both sides represented with regard to conflict among experts? This is data you will
use when you go to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The EQCB is trying
to compile a book it can use when people go on to the next levels. She didn't want
persons in the audience to be disappointed that the EQCB is not dealing with those
issues because, that's not what the Board is to consider. She said the important point is
if you don't get your two cents in about the data now, it can't be used later to make
decisions.
Member Voce read the questions:
Q. Irwin Anisman:
[J Could the consultant answer our comment regarding the site of the
Senior Care Facility exceeds State standards for CO and PM 10.
I
A. Ms. Culbertson said she was not quite sure what the commentor was getting at.
If he's asking are the PM 10 and carbon monoxide thresholds of the CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, the ambient environment, over that? It's right next to the
freeway. But remember this is an enclosed building. For example, you might not
put a school playground here but you would put a hotel or a restaurant, an
enclosed, building. Those buildings are always located next to freeways. She
was not quite sure what the question was.
Member Hurley said he was right, people would have to stay inside all the time
and not be able to enjoy the outdoors because the contamination levels would
not allow th~em to enjoy being outside.
Ms. Culbertson said this is senior assisted living and Alzheimer's care. The
people generally don't go out. The Alzheimer's patients require constant care
16
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
. 1 and assistance. It's not like Leisure World where it's a very active adult
2 community.
3
4 Mr. Hurley r,eminded Ms. Culbertson by saying that her own documents say
5 CEQA guidelines state that a project will have a significant impact if it exposes
6 sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
7
8 Q. Why didn't the air quality analysis take into account the contamination
9 from internal project traffic? That traffic, since it's at low speeds, emits
10 signincant CO and brake lining particulates.
11
12 Ms. Culbertson asked if "internal project traffic" meant parking lot traffic?
13
14 Mr. Anisman said yes, the traffic that's going into the project, out of the project,
15 going between parking spaces and so forth.
16
17 A. Ms. Culbertson said that is assumed in air quality study in tenns of the total trips
18 generated. There's an emission factor associated with it. There's an average
19 speed as one of the components of it.
20
21 Mr. Anisman said that's the point. The average speed doesn't reflect the slow
22 speed in the parking area. When you're going at 5 - 10 MPH the emissions are
23 considerably higher and that was not taken into account.
24 I
,
25 Ms. Culbertson said the emissions are infinitesimally small because the vehicle
. 26 miles traveled is what you go by in an air quality analysis. Not, whether someone
27 travels 200' in a parking lot. That's just not done. It's very difficult, unless it's a
28 very large project, to even get a local air quality impact emitted from a project like
29 this because air quality is a regional issue, except in "hot spots", which are
30 carbon monoxide concentrations at very high volume intersections where there's
31 a lot of gridlock etc. That's a special calculation. It doesn't exist in this project.
32
33 Mr. Anisman asked that in the air quality analysis, why was toxic air
34 contamination from the proposed gas station omitted?
35
36 Ms. Culbert~on asked what would that be? Under our current AQMD laws, which
37 have total capture on all gas station pumps? What would the toxins be?
38
39 Mr. Anisman asked if that wasn't a factor she needed to take into consideration?
40
41 Ms. Culbertson said it's totally regulated under the Clean Air Act through the Air
42 Quality Management District (AQMD) thru pumps. We've had recycling of
43 virtually all pumps in gas stations. And all new gas stations have to have
44 recapture mechanisms so there are no petroleum emissions (vapors) from the
45 gasoline and diesel fuels.
46
47
48 Q. Sid Rhodes: Regarding page 6, in the questions for the 9/2/98 meeting,
49 "The EIR references the fiscal impact analysis prepared by the City of Seal
50 Beach which indicates the uses within the proposed retail center are
51 generally non-competitive with the Rossmoor Center". How do you guys
52 know this without a plan? Do you guys already have people that want to
53 rent this place? And what could you possibly put there that wouldn't be
. 54 competitive with the people that are across the street and hurt the
55 merchants that are there?
56
17
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
The Chair said she thought that was an excellent question but is a fiscal impact
question. It should be saved for the Planning Commission, for her poor
counterpart, Dave Hood. It's an excellent question and one that she has when
she attends,the Planning Commission.
Member Voce asked the Chair if the Planning Commission considered the
project, in addition to the EIR, discussions? The EQCB's discussions are only on
the adequacy of this report. Does the Planning Commission also take on
questions outside the EIR and on the project itself?
The Chair asked the City Attorney to reply.
Mr. Steele said the Planning Commission is charged with making a
recommendation on the EIR and on the specific land use entitlements that have
been requested by the applicant. The General Plan amendments, the zone
change, the' maps and permits and the Development Agreement. All the land
use issues must be considered by the Planning Commission and they, by State
law, must make a recommendation to the City Council before the City Council
can make its ultimate decision on the merits of the project. So in addition to what
the EQCB is doing, in terms of looking at the adequacy of the EIR document, the
Planning Commission also has to look at the quality of life issues --- the policy
issue of whether these things are a good idea, whether the changes and
entitlements that are being requested are a good idea for the City. That's the first
stage in looking at those issues. Ultimately, the City Council makes that
decision. But the Council takes very seriously the recommendations of the
Planning Commission in making those policy decisions.
Member Voce asked if that would begin on September 9, 1998?
Mr. Steele said yes, the meeting has been Noticed to begin on September 9th.
Member Hurley asked what is the usual sequence that the Planning Commission
follows in covering all those different subjects? Do they make a recommendation
on the EIR first?
Mr. Steele said by law, the City Council must, if it intends to approve a project,
act on the EIR first. They have to take into account all the information in the EIR
before they can make their decision on a project. The Planning Commission
usually follows that sequence too when the Planning Commission is the decision-
maker. If this project were going to stop at the Planning Commission and not go
on to the City Council, the Planning Commission would be required to follow that
process as well. They would have to take action on the EIR. Because they're an
advisory body on this project, their process can be more fluid. Staff may
recommend to the Commission that in their hearings that they take a look at the
policy issues and merits first and then go on to the EIR. Their recommendations
are all going to go together to the City Council. But in terms of how they
structure their consideration of the project, staff's recommendation is to take the
policy issues first. As a practical matter, how it works in those hearings, is that
people get up and give testimony on both issues. It's not a case that tonight
we're going to talk about the EIR and next week we'll talk about the policy issues.
Everybody talks about all the issues at once.
Q.
Matt Stein ~ Rossmoor Homeowner's Association: We got a response to
P30.1 - "T/.le Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated April 20, 1998, prepared by the
City of Seed Beach indicates, page 1, that the 25 acres of proposed
retail/commercial use within the proposed "Old Ranch Towne Center is
18
..
-
.
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
expected to include a home improvement store, a value-oriented
department store, a grocery store, a drug store, fast food restaurants and
other misc~IIaneous retail uses". Further down it says "It is assumed
throughout the DEIR that general retail/commercial uses similar to those
described above would be provided in development area A as part of the
proposed project". So, it is in the DEIR that they do compare the two
centers. It;has been stated publicly and in writing the uses within the
proposed new retail center are generally non-competitive with the
Rossmoor Center both from a tenancy standpoint and a fiscal standpoint
However, when you compare tenants one-to-one there seems to be direct
competition between the proposed retail center and the existing Rossmoor
Center. We're asking for some explanation here. (He borrowed a
highlighter).
Member HU,rley asked what the source of Mr. stein's data was?
Mr. Stein said there are three sources, the Notice of Preparation, the fiscal
impact report and a conversation with the developer.
I
Member Hurley asked if the fiscal impact report was part of the DEIR?
Mr. Stein said it's referenced in the DEIR.
The Chair said the EQCB is looking at a box and the numbers there. When it
comes down to specifics this occurs at the Planning Commission level.
,
Mr. Stein s~id he fully understood that but said that in their response to the
Rossmoor Homeowners Association they stated that throughout here it is
generally assumed throughout the DEIR that these are the uses. And he was
only responding to their response.
The Chair said she wanted to give Mr. Stein a thought. When this comes up he
might want to address this issue. The financial issues will be dealt with at the
Commission. Rossmoor Center is in Seal Beach.
~
Mr. Stein said he was not dealing with the financial impact. He was only dealing
with a one-to-one comparison here, dealing with the issue of competition and
responding to their response.
The Chair said she understood but informed Mr. Stein that the EQCB does not
deal with zoning issues. Right now they have a concept and the Planning
Commission may get more specific.
Mr. stein, saying he understood the Chair's comment, said he still did not agree
with the consultant's response to the Rossmoor Homeowners Association and
this is why..
I
Ms. Culbertson said the data on the right hand side was never published in the
NOP data.
Mr. Stein showed here where it said 110,000 square feet. In his conversations
with the developer... (pause). He then reiterated the three sources of his
information.
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the record before the EQCB is the record in the
NOP and the DEIR document. The fiscal impact report is not before the EQCB
19
.
,4
.-
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15-
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
I
and is not part of the EQCB's deliberations. And discussions with the developer
are not before the EQCB. Those are issues before the Planning Commission.
And the fiscal impacts are not an issue for the Planning Commission but for the
City Council. .
The Chair said the numbers Mr. Stein presented and the numbers in the NOP ....
Mr. Whittenberg said what numbers? There are no numbers in the NOP
regarding size of land uses for particular buildings within the commercial
shopping center area. The NOP is here if the Chair would like to see it.
(Someone from the audience (perhaps) holding up a document).
Mr. Whittenberg said that's not an NOP. What he is referring to is the site plan
submitted by the developer for proposed purposes of analysis of the DEIR. It
does not indicate those are final land uses. No final land use plans have been
submitted. We've indicated that throughout the entire process. It shows a
11 0,00 squ~re foot building but does not indicate what the use of that building is.
No uses for' any buildings are designated. The issue before this body is a
building of a certain size with building components is the issue before the EQCB
for analysis.
The Chair said the specific would have, to go through the hearing process, right?
Mr. Whittenberg said the specifics have not been presented to the City by the
developer. Those would be part of a Public Hearing process before the Planning
Commission. Whether those uses are defined by the developer before the
Planning Commission hearings will be up to the developer.
Mr. Stein (?) said his response tonight was in response to our response to
general comments from the consultant. That's all he was responding to. The
response in there said as it was explained throughout the DEIR. I don't know
what more ~ can say than that.
Q. Dolores Sartain: Could you review the plan for widening Seal Beach
Boulevard from St. Cloud Drive to Lampson Avenue Avenue? How can
80% of the Eucalyptus trees be saved both inside and outside of the chain
link fence \vhen a new lane will be widened between 14' to 20' and put on
the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard? Going south on Seal Beach
Boulevard there will be another lane to make three lanes. There will be
three lanes going north. In order to go south, they will have to add another
lane eastbound, 14'-20' on the east side. So then, how can the trees be
saved?
A. Ms. Culbertson said it seems like the trees would have to go. But it's the
arrangement of the lane improvements and the fact that the larger parkway, that
it was accommodated as a change in the plan. It preserves trees that were
otherwise scheduled to be lost. That is where you come up with the 80%.
Ms. Sartain said she didn't understand, asking again about the larger parkway
and its location.
Ms. Culbertson said the larger parkway that was accommodated as a change in
the project to save more trees. It's along Seal Beach Boulevard frontage with the
commercial center. It's a larger parkway. From St. Cloud Drive to Lampson
Avenue there is no parkway.
20
.
.~
.-
.
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
City of Seal Beach - En\(ironmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
Ms. Sartain interrupted, saying but from St. Cloud Drive to Lampson Avenue
there is no parkway and there will be no trees.
Ms. Culbertson said the 200/0 tree loss is not in a uniform line along Seal Beach
Boulevard. She didn't have a tree exhibit with her tonight to show the exact
location of each and every tree of the hundreds of trees involved. You do lose
some trees by widening Seal Beach Boulevard but it's still 80% overall retention.
Ms. Sartain',said she still didn't understand the explanation. If an entire lane were
added plus a sidewalk, the trees would have to go because they are right in the
path of the lane.
Member Voce said his question to the consultant would have been the same as
Ms. Sartain's. He would have liked a visual on the western edge of the windrow,
which will get caught up in the widening and will be lost. But it represents the
western periphery. The only thing is he didn't have a visual to show Ms. Sartain.
Ms. Sartain described what she had read in the DEIR.
Member Voce addressed an exhibit (could not hear well on the tape). He tried to
explain which Eucalyptus trees would be lost and where.
Ms. Sartain ascertains the trees would be lost from St. Cloud Drive to Lampson
Avenue.
Member Voce said the trees are sick all the way down to Lampson Avenue.
Ms. Sartain. said the trees are sick by the highway, not sick all the way back their
two rows. ~
The Chair said, yes, the trees would be gone --- 200/0.
Ms. Sartain said she wasn't sure. When you read about Seal Beach Boulevard
all the way down, people envision 80% is out of all of it.
The Chair said that for the EQCB she thought the board members understand
the data in the report. A visual would be helpful; to ascertain what will be lost.
Ms. Sartain said she would wait for the visual and hoped it would be better than
she felt it would be.
Member Voce said anyone who butchers a tree would hear from him. The tree
doesn't have to be on this applicant's property. It could be on private property.
He has evely right under the United States' constitution -- if you do that to the
tree you will hear his response --- loud and clear from here to Rome.
Member Hurley asked the consultant if she would bring the visual to the next
meeting? This issue has been bothering him but he hasn't gotten out of his car
to see how wide the windrow is. He understood there are other trees in back of
the windrow that will be affected, perhaps more so, than the windrow. It's not
clear in his mind how wide the windrow is or how many trees would be lost.
Ms. Culbertson said she would bring the exhibit. She said "Make no mistake,
you'll lose about 20% ofthe trees".
21
.
..
..
'.
..
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
1 Member Voce said there were no more questions.
2
3 The Chair asked if people had other comments could they bring them by City Hall?
4
5 Mr. Whittenberg explained City Hall is closed on Fridays plus the Labor Day holiday.
6
7 The Chair asked the Board if they were ready to decide on the adequacy of the DEIR?
8
9 Member Hurley asked the C,hair if she was asking what the Board was going to do the rest of the
10 night?
11
12 The Chair said jokingly she was going home.
13
14 Member Hurley said they needed to firm up next week's meeting.
15
16 The Chair closed the Public Hearing.
17
18 STAFF CONCERNS
19
20 Mr. Whittenberg said his only concern is how the EQCB is going to finalize their deliberations on
21 this issue. i-
22
23 BOARD CONCERNS
24
25 Member Porter said if the EQCB is going to meet on Tuesday, September 8th he would like the
26 meeting to be as early as possible.
27
28 Member Jones said he would like an overview on what the Board is to do now.
29
30 Member Hurley asked if there is any chance they can have draft minutes of the August 26, 1998
31 EQCB meeting in the September 2nd packet? Mr. Whittenberg said the Board could have minutes
32 for the August 26th meeting. Those were finished in a draft form today. Those will be delivered
33 tomorrow. The minutes from this meeting would most likely not be done because there is only
34 one day to work on them. Staff will try to make them available on Tuesday evening.
35
36 Member Hurley asked if the, consultant would bring more of their staff on Tuesday?
37
38 Ms. Culbertson said yes and named who they would be.
39
40 Vice Chairperson McGuire ~aid she was concerned that the EQCB does not have a
41 recommendation from the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) and they met tonight. Mr.
42 Whittenberg said the AAC met tonight and they finalized their recommendations to the EQCB and
43 the Planning Commission. They recommended a change to one mitigation measure in the
44 Cultural Resources section and that will be included in the materials delivered to the EQCB
45 tomorrow.
46
47 Vice Chairperson McGuire said she would like an early meeting with the intent of finalizing their
48 recommendation on this document. Hopefully that will be Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. Adjoumment
49 would have to be at 7:00 p.r:n. Member Hur1ey said his comments would be approximately 20
50 minutes as would hers. There would not be a lot of time for public testimony. She encouraged
51 the public to give any remaining comments to the EQCB.
52
53 Member Hurley asked if the Board could discourage public participation in that meeting?
54
55 Member Voce said he didn't think that would be possible in Seal Beach.
56
22
";:>
.
,
'.
..
~.
City of Seal Beach - Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of September 2, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Respectfully Submittedt
14 ____ .
15 C'\ "
16 '-i D O-r\ ,~o..,-,,,,,
17 Joan Fillmann
18 Executive Secretary
19 Planning Department
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Member Hurley aske:j if the Ch~mbers were available on Tuesday, and how early could they
arrive. The Members discussed how early they could arrive. They decided to start at 4:30 p.m.
MOTION by Hurley; SECCND by Jones to adjoum the September 2nd meeting to Tuesday,
September 8, 1998 at 4:30 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
5-0-0
Hurley, McGuire, Voce, Porter, Jones
ADJOURNMENT
With the consensus of the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
APPROVAL:
The EQCB Minutes of September 2, 1998 were approved by the Board
on c5J!::J?r 3D 1998F
t These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
23